C.Savariammal, v. The Commissioner
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and W.M.P(MD)Nos.1571 & 1572 of 2017 A.Savariammal ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Commissioner, Land Administration Department, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai.
2.The District Collector / Chairman, Coastal Management Authority, Pudukottai, 3.Coastal Aquaculture Authority, represented by its Member Secretary, GDR Tower, 12-A, Bharathi Street, Vanuvampetti, Madipakkam P.O, Chennai - 600 091.
4.The Assistant Director of Fisheries (Marine), 22, Lakshmipuram First street, Pudukottai, Pudukottai District - 622 001.
5.The District Revenue Officer, Pudukottai, 6.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi, 7.The Tahsildar, Avudaiyarkoil, 1/4
8.Devaraj 9.Novid 10.Thirumeinidos ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to take necessary action against the illegal acts of the respondents 8 to 10 from establishing the prawn farm in and adjacent to the petitioner's land in Survey No.63/29 (Preveious Survey No.63/1) Nattanipurasakudi, Avudaiyarkoil Taluk, Pudukottai District and consequently, remove the said prawn farm establishedment within a reasonable time period to be fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Boopathi Pandiyan For Respondents : Mr.G.Sivaraja Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for R.1, R.2 & R.4 to R.7 Mrs.L.Victoria Gowri Assistant Solicitor General of India for R.3 Mr.G.Radhakrishnan for R.10 Tapal Due for R.8 Tapal Returned for R.9
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the State Government and the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the third respondent.
2. Notice on the private respondents could not be served. The allegation of the petitioner is that the private respondents have been running the petition mentioned prawn farm illegally. Since the authorities have not taken any action, the present writ petition came to be filed. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the third respondent submitted that without registering themselves with the third respondent authority, a prawn farm cannot be established. In this case, the private respondents have not registered themselves with the third respondent. This submission is more than sufficient for this Court to conclude that the private respondents have illegally established the farm.
3. I wanted to know from the learned Government Advocate as to what action the State Government has taken. It is stated that action 2/4
has been taken by the District Collector and the prawn farm has since been closed. A counter has also been filed to that effect by the Tahsildar, Avudaiyarkovil.
4. Recording the said submission, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) mga To 1.The Commissioner, Land Administration Department, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai.
2.The District Collector / Chairman, Coastal Management Authority, Pudukottai, 3.The Member Secretary, Coastal Aquaculture Authority, GDR Tower, 12-A, Bharathi Street, Vanuvampetti, Madipakkam P.O, Chennai - 600 091.
4.The Assistant Director of Fisheries (Marine), 22, Lakshmipuram First street, Pudukottai, Pudukottai District - 622 001.
5.The District Revenue Officer, Pudukottai, 3/4
6.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi, 7.The Tahsildar, Avudaiyarkoil, +1 CC to M/s.M.BOOPATHI PANDIYAN, Advocate ( SR-24757[F] dated 09/06/2022 ) +1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-25096[F] dated 10/06/2022 ) 08.06.2022 SS(17/06/2022) 4P 10C 4/4